Gone In Sixty Days - Stirrings On The War Powers Act

Six Republican Senators query the Obama Administration on just what style of steaming dung the Adinistration propose to serve in order to feign compliance with the sixty-day limit on action in Libya seemingly required by the War Powes Act:

Washington (CNN) – As the U.S. military campaign in Libya approaches the 60-day mark this Friday, six Republican senators wrote President Obama asking if he will comply with the War Powers Act, which says Congress must authorize action that lasts more than 60 days.

"Friday is the final day of the statutory sixty-day period for you to terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya under the War Powers Resolution. Last week some in your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely, while others said you would act in a manner consistent with the War Powers Resolution. Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response," wrote the GOP senators Wednesday.

The letter was signed by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.

One guess - Adminstration planners miscounted slightly.  Since the world will be ending on Saturday, the sixty day limit will quickly become moot.

This strikes me as dumb:

But Sen. Rand Paul told CNN congress should not let any president get away with launching military action without congressional approval, and that he and his colleagues may go to the Supreme Court and ask for a ruling on whether the president is in violation of the law.

"There is a law. It's on the books, and in plain reading of the War Powers Act, he appears to be in violation of the War Powers Act," said Paul.

Paul said they will also attempt to push "legislative remedies" on the Senate floor, but acknowledges that may be hard to accomplish since Democrats control the schedule.

My understanding is that the Supreme Court very much prefers to duck these inter-branch squabbles, especially when the Congress can very easily speak for and defend its own interests by exercising, for example, its power of the purse.

Comments

[peter]

style of steaming-- very nice alliteration

[Barry]

I do what I want, when I want, and if you do not like it, go phuque yourselves, peons. . .

OOs & XXs,
Barry

[Semenfilledcleo]

My imaginary son has been called up to go to Libya. I fear he'll be killed there, just as he was in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Obama is now a war criminal in my eyes.

[jimmyk]

Not sure this is the right approach. Republicans have argued in the past that the WP Resolution is lousy legislation and arguably unconstitutional. Yes, what goes around comes around, but Congress has the power of the purse, why not use that?

[Danube of Thought]

I think the Supremes might well say it's a political question and not rule at all. One thing they certainly won't do is what Rand Paul wants: the Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions.

[Extraneus]

Union thugs reeling...

AFL-CIO Chief Warning Dems to Do More for Unions or Lose Support

"Powerful political forces are seeking to silence working people -- to drive us out of the national conversation," Trumka said.

Trumka and other union leaders have said they expect the moves in some states to curb union rights will create a backlash that will help organized labor grow stronger. Unions are already spending millions to help recall campaigns in Wisconsin and Ohio. They are hoping the momentum of those recalls can be sustained through the 2012 elections.

[Danube of Thought]

I'm sitting here thinking that back in 2003 California could have chosen Tom McClintock. Instead it chose Schwarzenegger.

In a democracy, people get what they deserve--good and hard.

[Extraneus]

...

[Melinda Romanoff]

You do know that the War Powers Act only applies to Republican Presidents, right?

[Dave (in MA)]

60?

Only 44 by my count. You can't include Saturdays and Sundays.

[Threadkiller]

We can only hope McClintock will run for something higher.

McClintock on War Powers Act

[Threadkiller]

BTW he trashes the idea of the 60 day requirement.

[bgates]

Republicans have argued in the past that the WP Resolution is lousy legislation and arguably unconstitutional.

Seems like a good time to propose repeal. I'd love to hear Harry Reid explain why it was vital for Congress to retain a power they're currently pretending doesn't exist. It's even money that he'd end up quoting Mel's 9:56 on air.

[Extraneus]

I think Glenn Beck is losing his mind. I rarely listen to him, but over the past year he's gotten weirder and weirder. Today he's so choked up over an event he's planning in Israel that he's only able to get a few words out at a time.

He sure does seem to need a vacation.

[Threadkiller]

After the 7 min mark he even challenges Ambassador Bolton’s view of the decision process for going to war.

McClintock is a tough guy.

[narciso]

I wouldn't dismiss him so readily, he has been very prescient about the event of the last 6 months, so much so it scares him, Cassandra didn't want to be proven right.

[Extraneus]

Well ok, but he's pretty darned scared, then.

[jimmyk]

Good idea, bgates. All the squirming and twisting would be a sight to see.

TK, I similarly have doubts about using Obama's earlier words against him now (as McClintock does in the video). That suggests that there was a time when Obama had a clue, or that anything he says beyond 2+2=4 can ever be taken seriously.

[Threadkiller]

I know, jimmyk. McClintock fires a lot at Obama besides Obama's own words for that reason, I believe.

[Truncated Truth]

"He sure does seem to need a vacation."

Bexk is like a tent preacher whose hysterical religiousity is converted to coin of the realm via ad rates versus the collection plate.

In the Order of Melchezidec ,,,

[narciso]

Ideally, this should be the way, but in practice, one recalls the debates over aid
to the Contras, not to mention the Gulf War
it's not. We've had many military expeditions
mostly in the Americas which didn't require
any congressional approval. The question, is more whether this intervention is worth our time, as opposed to others.

[Ignatz]

--My understanding is that the Supreme Court very much prefers to duck these inter-branch squabbles, especially when the Congress can very easily speak for and defend its own interests by exercising, for example, its power of the purse.--

Only partially true. The SCOTUS (and federal courts in general) is not too shy about accreting more power to its branch of the government, but it does seem generally more interested in advancing the power of all branches over the citizenry than in determining which of the other two branches should wield whatever power the court doesn't reserve for itself.

Having said that, the idea that the solution to executive branch lawlessness is witholding the purse strings seems to me a sure fire method to ensure increasing executive attempts at lawlessness which undermine the Constitution. The question of which branch exercises which power is pretty well defined in the Constitution and seems precisely what SCOTUS was made for but it's so much easier for all three branches to concentrate on usurping the power of their common enemy, us, than it is each other, isn't it?

[MayBee]

The pursestring argument is valid, but this president just rejected Congress's budgetary restrictions on his czars.
ISTM Obama wouldn't hesitate to keep the NATO flights going even if Congress said they wouldn't pay for it, and didn't provide funding.

[jimmyk]

witholding the purse strings seems to me a sure fire method to ensure increasing executive attempts at lawlessness which undermine the Constitution.

How does that follow? (Not being sarcastic here, just interested to hear your reasoning.) And isn't it plausible that the power of the purse is in fact one of the Constitution's intended checks and balances to push against encroachments of the executive branch? Of course I agree with your larger point that our bigger problem is the encroachment of all three branches.

[Truncated Truth]

Well, Maguire, you've scrubbed your archives AND your internet server of any War Powers posts when Bush was in catbird seat.

Ain't THAT interesting?

[Rocco]

rse

If you're out there...you may already have this but I thought I'd post it just in case. It's linked from Bill Ayers blog.

[Ignatz]

OT, but in my opinion Peter Ferrera at Forbes gets it exactly right as to the causes of the financial crisis and their weighting and why we remain stuck in the doldrums. Best short take on it I've seen yet [of course that may be because he agrees with me].

[Ignatz]

--Well, Maguire, you've scrubbed your archives AND your internet server of any War Powers posts when Bush was in catbird seat.

Ain't THAT interesting?--

Yeah TM has a long history of doing just that. [insert eye rolling icon]

[Danube of Thought]

When did Bush violate the Act?

I think McClintock is certainly correct that Obama has violated the Act, and I share his doubts about its constitutionality. I am uncertain about whether the president has the constitutional authority to act without authorization, but if the SCt were ever to rule on the question, military action in a case like Libya is the one most likely to be held unconstitutional.

McC is also correct that as a practical matter there is no judicial remedy. And there surely will be no impeachment. The only real remedy is to vote him out of office, and although that may happen it won't be because of his Libyan adventure. Tough cheese.

[Cecil Turner]

I think the War Powers act argument is far weaker than the Constitutional one . . . there was no legit reason to start that war without Congressional approval in the first place, so the 60-day nonsense should never have come up.

And while I heartily agree with Sen Paul that we shouldn't let the President get away with that (or promising funding to Arab states, for that matter), I also agree with Tom that SCOTUS is unlikely to rule on it.

[Bush IS the law]

It seems all the Righty bloggers quickly scrubbed posts that expose their hypocrisy, but here is one of your paramours......

"Tuesday, December 20. 2005

Santorum: Bush is the law

Rick Santorum's spokesman tells the Philadelphia Inquirer that Rick believes "that in times of war, the President has the constitutional oversight or the constitutional ability to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people," including spying on American citizens without any sort of judicial approval or oversight.

Really Rick? Well then, who gets to decide exactly what qualifies as "whatever is necessary?" The king President?

Under Rick's interpretation, couldn't Nixon have claimed that he wanted to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee because we were fighting in Vietnam and he thought that Democrats presented a threat to the American people?

Here are excerpts from the Inquirer:
Key members of Congress from the Philadelphia region voiced skepticism yesterday about President Bush's contention that he has the legal authority to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and others without judicial review.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.), though, said the President needed leeway in fighting terrorist threats to the nation.

...Santorum, a member of the Senate GOP leadership, had no qualms.

"The senator recognizes that in times of war, the President has the constitutional oversight or the constitutional ability to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people," Santorum spokesman Robert L. Traynham said. "He fully supports the President's ability to protect American lives by going this step in terms of listening in on conversations."

http://www.santorumexposed.com/serendipity/archives/110-Santorum-Bush-is-the-law.html

[Extraneus]

Recent college grads sour on Obama, surveys say

The scope of this disengagement from Obama is suggested by an informal survey of 500 post-grads by Joe Maddalone, founder of Maddalone Global Strategies. Of his sample, 93 percent are aged between 22 and 28, 67 percent are male and 83 percent voted for Obama in 2008. But only 27 percent are committed to voting for Obama again, and 80 percent said they would consider voting for a Republican, said New York-based Maddalone.

[Ignatz]

--How does that follow? (Not being sarcastic here, just interested to hear your reasoning.)--

If the executive does not have to worry about a slap down from SCOTUS when it tries to exceed its powers it will be tempted [and history would seem to indicate this is so] to see just how much it can get away with and what it doesn't get away with is merely temporary defeat peculiar to that particular issue not a long lived limitation on its power.
More importantly without an effective threat from SCOTUS to reign in overreaching, when the same party controls both the legislative and the executive, what effective check on executive power is left, since SCOTUS has voluntarily left the field, the purse string threat is minimal and congressional guarding of its powers is greatly reduced [not eliminated, but certainly weakened]?

--And isn't it plausible that the power of the purse is in fact one of the Constitution's intended checks and balances to push against encroachments of the executive branch?--

Sure. It's supposed to be 'one of' but not the only one.

[Ignatz]

--It seems all the Righty bloggers quickly scrubbed posts that expose their hypocrisy...--

You discovered this on your day off strolling about the grassy knoll, right?

[Bush IS the law]

My apologies to Iggy......

It seems links for right wing war cheerleading are scrubbed along with right wing opposition to the war. (heh)

[Ignatz]

--My apologies to Iggy......

It seems links for right wing war cheerleading are scrubbed along with right wing opposition to the war. (heh)--

Ah, I see, you mean the evidence things have been scrubbed is because no one has provided you proof they haven't.
Interesting POV, to be as charitable as possible.

[Bush IS the law]

Published on Friday, September 20, 2002 by the Associated Press
Bush Seeks Sweeping War Powers
by Ron Fournier

WASHINGTON –– The sweeping authority sought by President Bush to confront Iraq would allow him to ignore the United Nations and fight Saddam Hussein at the time, place and manner of his choosing. Some legal experts said the proposed resolution would even permit the president to use military force beyond Iraq's borders.

A pre-emptive, unilateral first strike would set a terrible international precedent.

Rep. Barbara Lee
D-Calif.
"It's wide open," said Scott L. Silliman, director of Duke University's Center on Law, Ethics and National Security. "This resolutions says, 'Mr. President, you can use force anywhere to bring peace and stability anywhere'."

One Democratic lawmaker said Bush was writing himself a blank check for war.

The 20-paragraph proposed resolution would authorize Bush to "use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce" United Nation's Security Council Resolutions, "defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region."

Bush's advisers, citing the U.N. resolutions and a 1998 law, said his proposal allows for the violent ouster of Saddam. While he believes the commander in chief does not need Congress' authority to wage war, Bush wants the political and moral authority that comes with congressional action, advisers said.

A show of unity with Congress also may help Bush's bid for a U.N. resolution to disarm Saddam, advisers said.

"If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force," Bush told reporters after a meeting with his war council in the Oval Office.

The proposal appears to be broader than an Iraq resolution passed by Congress in 1998, which did not specifically approve force, and may be more sweeping than the measure giving Bush's father authority to fight the Persian Gulf War, legal experts said.

Congressional leaders predicted they would quickly give Bush broad powers, though some Democrats objected to his proposal.

"I'm not giving the president a blank check, period," said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, said Bush's proposal was more open-ended than the congressional resolution that authorized war in Vietnam.

"The Gulf of Tonkin resolution ... did at least limit the president to repelling an armed attack and preventing future aggression, and to aiding certain treaty members who requested defense," he said.

Though White House officials insisted the resolution was limited to Iraq, legal experts said talk about restoring peace and stability in the region is unusually broad and could eventually be applied to other terrorist havens.

"What region? It doesn't say just Iraq. It says the region," Silliman said. "Would it allow him to use force in Yemen? How about the Sudan? One could argue that it could."

Robert Turner, associate director of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law, said a sweeping resolution showcases American unity, which can avert war – as he said happened during the Cuban missile crisis and amid confrontations in the Middle East and China during the 1950s.

"When Congress stood behind the president and threatened the use of force, each time the bad guys backed down," Turner said.

The resolution embraces Bush's new "first strike" policy, allowing the United States to attack a country over a perceived threat instead of waiting for America to be struck first.

"A pre-emptive, unilateral first strike would set a terrible international precedent," said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif.

White House officials said this would not be the first time the United States has stood ready to strike first. Two examples they offered: The 1962 blockade of Cuba to keep Russian missiles out of the Western Hemisphere and the nation's refusal during the Cold War to rule out a first strike nuclear attack to prevent a larger attack.

Bush's resolution also would allow him to act on his own, even if the United Nations refuses to bless his Iraqi policy.

"Going alone has some very significant risks," warned Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich.

He wants Bush's resolution to say the president needs a U.N. resolution backing the use of force.

[Danube of Thought]

The fool Cleo seems utterly unaware of the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force, for which three-fourths of the congress voted "aye," and pursuant to which Iraq was invaded. (Too bad his imaginary kid got killed there, but all's well that ends well: he's alive again, and helping with the illegal war in Libya.)

I'll repeat my question: when did Bush violate the War Powers Act?

[narciso]

One is struck how one can't take their word
seriously on anything,

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011884.php

[MayBee]

And Congress voted to give Bush the authority. What's the controversy?

[Extraneus]

They talked themselves into quite a few lies during Bush's term, so it's really not fair or sporting to expect them to remember which ones were which after all this time.

[Cecil Turner]

The fool Cleo seems utterly unaware of the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force . . .

Both of 'em. And seems to think the law requires UN concurrence, rather than that of Congress. The claims of lawlessness are rather rich, considering the current President didn't even bother to ask for one.

[narciso]

It's striking though, how Lee who actually voted against the first authorization in Afghanistan, could have been taken seriously, then again how a former staffer for Ron Dellums, who was tied in documents recovered
in Grenada, is an enduring mystery

[narciso]

This is what I was referring to,

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=936

[jimmyk]

without an effective threat from SCOTUS to reign in overreaching,

Ok, I thought you were saying that the "purse string" strategy would actually be counterproductive, whereas you seem to be saying that it's insufficient. That's true in general, but shouldn't be such a problem now, though Maybee's post suggests otherwise.

[Danube of Thought]

Among the worthies who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq were Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry and Evan Bayh. There were plenty more, but you'll have a hard time finding their names: Wikipedia lists by name only those who voted against, then says "all others voted for."

Since Cleo is clearly not up to the task, let me ask any leftist: when did Bush violate the War Powers Act?

[Neo]

Outrage ! Who expects outrage ? The Senate is on record just a few weeks ago rejecting the idea that the President had to go to Congress to wage war like that in Libya …

Back in 2007, Senator Obama told the Boston Globe “the president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the (U.S.) nation.”
Paul said he wanted the Senate to endorse Obama’s past words and thus establish that the president had overreached in authorizing the U.S. action in Libya last month without first obtaining Congress’ approval.

The Senate rejected pre-Nobel-Obama's view by 90-10

[Ignatz]

--Ok, I thought you were saying that the "purse string" strategy would actually be counterproductive--

In the short run it seems to be the only solution and therefore is not counterproductive.
In the long run, if it remains the only effective check [and I question just how effectively it is wielded] it may very well turn out to be counterproductive by further marginalizing the other unused checks envisioned by the founders.
Lord knows the check on federal power originally provided by the states has almost wholly been turned on its head.

[Ignatz]

Excellent point Neo.

[Extraneus]

Here are the 77 Yes votes for the final Senate bill:

R Alan Allard CO
R George Allen VA
D Max Baucus MT
D Birch Bayh IN
R Robert Bennett UT
D Joseph Biden DE
R Christopher Bond MO
D John Breaux LA
R Samuel Brownback KS
R James Bunning KY
R Conrad Burns MT
R Ben Campbell CO
D Maria Cantwell WA
D Jean Carnahan MO
D Thomas Carper DE
D Joseph Cleland GA
D Hillary Clinton NY
R William Cochran MS
R Susan Collins ME
R Larry Craig ID
R Michael Crapo ID
D Thomas Daschle SD
R Richard DeWine OH
D Christopher Dodd CT
R Pietro Domenici NM
D Byron Dorgan ND
D Johnny Edwards NC
R John Ensign NV
R Michael Enzi WY
D Dianne Feinstein CA
R Peter Fitzgerald IL
R William Frist TN
R William Gramm TX
R Charles Grassley IA
R Judd Gregg NH
R Charles Hagel NE
D Thomas Harkin IA
R Orrin Hatch UT
R Jesse Helms NC
D Ernest Hollings SC
R Timothy Hutchinson AR
R Kathyrn Hutchison TX
R James Inhofe OK
D Timothy Johnson SD
D John Kerry MA
D Herbert Kohl WI
R Jon Kyl AZ
D Mary Landrieu LA
D Joseph Lieberman CT
D Blanche Lincoln AR
R Chester Lott MS
R Richard Lugar IN
R John McCain AZ
R Addison McConnell KY
D Zell Miller GA
R Frank Murkowski AK
D Clarence Nelson FL
D Earl Nelson NE
R Donald Nickles OK
D Harry Reid NV
R Charles Roberts KS
D John Rockefeller WV
R Richard Santorum PA
D Charles Schumer NY
R Jefferson Sessions AL
R Richard Shelby AL
R Gordon Smith OR
R Robert Smith NH
R Olympia Snowe ME
R Arlen Specter PA
R Theodore Stevens AK
R Craig Thomas WY
R Fred Thompson TN
R James Thurmond SC
D Robert Torricelli NJ
R George Voinovich OH
R John Warner VA

[MarkO]

In my experience, whenever Obama lapses into even more incoherence and dithering than usual or when he makes a greater fool of himself in public than he did with the ancient columns speech, the trolls and assorted outriders feel the need to make him look good by comparing him to their drivel. Thus, the increase in content from Nameless and Clueless (could be a law firm).

Apparently, Obama is just not that smart.

[Danube of Thought]

Thanks Ext. A real all-star cast of Dem warmongers there. (Note "Johnny Edwards" of North Carolina.)

[BB Key]

Thanks EX, notice how many of them are no longer in the Senate and Warner, Thurmond, Helms, Stevens will never serve again.... Did Bobby Byrd vote against ?

[Extraneus]

Against H.J.Res. 114; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002:

D Daniel Akaka HI
D Jesse Bingaman NM
D Barbara Boxer CA
D Robert Byrd WV
R Lincoln Chafee RI
D Kent Conrad ND
D Jon Corzine NJ
D Mark Dayton MN
D Richard Durbin IL
D Russell Feingold WI
D Daniel Graham FL
D Daniel Inouye HI
D James Jeffords VT
D Edward Kennedy MA
D Patrick Leahy VT
D Carl Levin MI
D Barbara Mikulski MD
D Patty Murray WA
D John Reed RI
D Paul Sarbanes MD
D Deborah Stabenow MI
D Paul Wellstone MN
D Ronald Wyden OR

[narciso]

So, Jay Rockefeller, who probably leaked our war plans to the Syrians first chance he got,
who sought who misrepresent the intelligence,
also voted for it.

[narciso]

Just a reminder:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/swirsky120305.htm

[Ignatz]

Excellent analysis of Barry's speech yesterday by Robert Spencer at anduril's favorite site, Frontpagemag.
There are so many good articles there today I recommend taking a look at the whole site too.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

In the Order of Melchezidec ,,,

Oh for Gods' sakes. If you're gonna quote the Old Testament, get it right: Psalm 110

"4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent: 'Thou art a priest for ever
after the manner of Melchizedek.'

[Extraneus]

Yes, Jay Rockefeller is certainly a scumbag among scumbags. A scumbag extraordinaire, as it were. Of course, Bush could have called him out, but turned the other cheek instead, as was his wont.

[clarice]

About that pursestrings argument...Instead of cutting off funds to the military why not cut off WH travel and entertainment allowances?

[centralcal]

uh oh, no room at this inn:

Strauss-Khan’s wife, heiress Anne Sinclair, rented a luxurious apartment in Manhattan at Bristol Plaza, and was to pay the $200,000 a month it would cost to secure her husband inside who would be under house arrest while awaiting trial.

However, 1010 WINS has confirmed that the Plaza has turned away Sinclair once it was discovered Strauss-Kahn would be staying there. He may now be kept at Rikers Island for longer than expected.

[Bush IS the law]

"The fool Cleo seems utterly unaware of the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force . . "

Reading comprehension, or disingenuous responses keep
apace here at the focus of honest brokerage.

How many of you did not capitulate to every Bush Wish
in his War of Choice?

King .makers to the front please.

NOW you're all "The President is overreaching."

Go fish....

[Bush IS the law]

"after the manner of Melchizedek.'"

Good Lord!

What translation, buddhist fakir?

[Ignatz]

--Oh for Gods' sakes. If you're gonna quote the Old Testament, get it right:--

Many translations including the King James and NKJV use the term according to the order of Melchizedek in both Psalm 110 and Hebrews 5.

[MarkO]

As for me and my house, I've gone for my horse.

[English as second language]

--Oh for Gods' sakes

shouldn't that be ... Oh for God's sake ...?

[pagar]

May God Bless George Bush for all he did to protect America.

[centralcal]

I love this response from Orbitz to an attempted shakedown by MediaMutters:

“We have a strict policy of tolerance and non-discrimination, and that means we don’t favor one political side over another. Tolerance is a two-way street,” he said. “We’re going to advertise on conservative TV stations, liberal TV stations and — if there are any out there — unbiased news broadcasts.”

Sounds like a really great PR move to me!

[Neo]

On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

In the meeting, she said, Obama discussed how records get into the system and what can be done about firearms retailers. Her husband specifically brought up the proposed ban on large magazine clips, and she noted that even former vice president Dick Cheney had suggested that some restrictions on the clips might make sense.

“He just laughed,” Sarah Brady said approvingly of the president. Both she and her husband, she emphasized, had absolute confidence that the president was committed to regulation.

Most transparent ever.

[jimmyk]

Oh for Gods' sakes. If you're gonna quote the Old Testament, get it right

Not to defend cleo, but the Old Testament is in Hebrew, and subject to various translations and transliterations. There are more substantive issues to nail him on if you want to bother.

[Bush IS the law]

"May God Bless George Bush for all he did to protect America."

I too, thank him......for all his good work.

[jimmyk]

oops, forgot to refresh before posting...

[centralcal]

jimmyk, that was Cleo citing the Old Testament, it was Charlie(Colorado).

[centralcal]

oops - wasn't Cleo

[Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)]

However, 1010 WINS has confirmed that the Plaza has turned away Sinclair once it was discovered Strauss-Kahn would be staying there. He may now be kept at Rikers Island for longer than expected.

Holy cow.

I got an email from a fellow cruiser who is from Paris and she said that since the victim is a black Muslim and all the blacks and the Muslims are socialists there is a bit of whip lash going on in France. As we have seen they blame the US justice system and discount any notion of rape.

Marine LePen the far right wing candidate is the only person expressing sympathy for the victim, which may in fact win her some votes.

[narciso]

It's a wonder isn't it, Bush as we've pointed out, put forth two AUMF, Obama doesn't do one,
for an extended operation (I know it's NATO, now, but we are NATO, for all intents and purposes) that's why all this chaff.

[clarice]

In my experience for the French the shortest distance between two points is never a straight line.

[jimmyk]

cc, Charlie was responding to the ranting of "Truncated Truth" at 10:49.

[yup, it's me cleo]

Sorry, just not having my day. Apparently you're not allowed to bite your caseworker just because you're pusher isn't answering the phone.

[Sue]

Apparently you're not allowed to bite your caseworker just because you're pusher isn't answering the phone.

Okay. That one made me laugh.

[Ranger]

Reading comprehension, or disingenuous responses keep
apace here at the focus of honest brokerage.

How many of you did not capitulate to every Bush Wish
in his War of Choice?

King .makers to the front please.

NOW you're all "The President is overreaching."

And what you are either unable (or more likely are simply deliberately pretending) to understand, is that all those "Bush Wish[s]" were the exercize of the president's legitimate powers as a wartime commander in cheif. Bush had those powers because congress had voted to grant him those powers by passing the Authorization of Use of Military Force. Obama has those same powers WRT Iraq, Afgahnistan, and AQ because those resolutions remain in force.

Obama does not have those powers WRT Libya because he has never asked for, nor been granted them by congress. That is the over-reach: the fact that Obama acts as if he has authority to wage war on Libya without congressional approval.

Now, if you are willing to argue that Obama doesn't need that authority to wage war against Libya, that's fine, but it completely undermines the arguments made for years by leftists about President Bush waging "illegal wars."

[Thomas Collins]

The War Powers Act is a relic from a 1970s Democrat Congress that wanted to emasculate the ability of the United States to undertake vigorous military and intelligence operations throughout the world. The appropriate response of any POTUS to a War Powers Act request is that it is unconstitutional, will be ignored by the POTUS, and if Congress doesn't like it, it can initiate impeachment proceedings. Unfortunately, no POTUS has had the cojones to do this.

[narciso]

Recall this guy, he's doubling down on stupid:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/19/not_perfect_but_a_long_way_from_w?page=full

[Extraneus]

According to Rush, Netanyahu just gave Barry the finger in his post-meeting comments to the press:

1. Not going back to 67 borders
2. Not negotiating with Hamas-backed govt
3. Not letting Palis re-settle in Israel

[Danube of Thought]

"Reading comprehension, or disingenuous responses keep
apace here at the focus of honest brokerage."

Although the sentence is borderline gibberish, it is meet that Cleo should raise the matter of disingenous responses. At 11:15 he accuses TM of scrubbing all references to the War Powers Act from the Bush presidency. Challenged to say why there would ever have been any such references, he mumbles and evades.

Bush did not violate the Act. Obama has done so. Poor Cleo is almost as chagrined as he was the day his imaginary son was martyred in Iraq.

[Rick Ballard]

Narciso,

I've read that NATO is running low on kinetic humanitarian aid packages. The interesting (to me, anyway) part of this comes in when BOzo tries to replenish NATO stocks with DoD materiale. That should bring in the IG and generate a referral to the DOJ.

We know that the current DoJ is so compromised that a referral will be ignored but we are now at the point where the President's minions have no hope of running out the clock wrt statute of limitations passes. 2013 and a new AG are just around the corner and BOzo's clown posse now run the risk of decent prison sentences.

The end of this maladministration is going to be the biggest rat scramble ever seen.

[anduril]

Just caught up on the prior thread. Here goes:

Absolutely priceless. At 12:43 cathyf writes:

I normally just SOB anduril. When my name in one of his postings caught my eye as I was scrolling on by (that would make a catchy tune...) I had to go back and read all that stuff I missed.

Everyone has to claim that they SOB my posts, yet they manage to pick up short, lower case handles like cathyf from the middle of a paragraph while SOBing, puzzle over awkward syntax, etc. All while busily SOBing.

Go ahead, try it out--here's my original post:

You only claim to be a Catholic?

Even as I wrote that, I realized that some of the dumber inhabitants of this site would misunderstand it. But cathyf didn't. In a deeper sense, yes, I only claim to be Catholic. Ultimately God will decide.

Not so easy to pick out the "cathyf" in there if you're actually SOBing. LOL.

Next, to the substance of cathyf's 12:43 post.

[clarice]

I hope you are right, Rick.

[narciso]

As Volokh points out, Israel retreated from Suez, on promises, repudiated by Johnson in '67. They redeployed out of Gaza in '05-06,
and they got the Gaza war in short order.

[clarice]

TheSuez fandango was something I wrote about in college. It made me forever aware that the UN pledges and international law are not worth the paper they are written on. Anyone who relies on such things will be destroyed.

Michelle's mirror:

"Besides, the real purpose of the read was not to clear things up in the Middle East, butt to test drive a two state solution for the US as well. The proposal would be to return the US to the pre-1845 border between us and Mexico. In short, he wants to give Texas back to the Mexicans. It’s a win-win: we won’t have to build moats with alligators, and Mexico gets all the rednecks who aren’t going to vote for Big Guy no matter what."

[centralcal]

thanks for the clarification, jimmyk. sorry for my mistake.

[BB Key]

I would like to see us return to the April 1861 borders..... Then we could drill all we want to in the Gulf and y'all can have all the electric cars, solar panels and wind mills you want...

[yup, it's me cleo]

here's mud in your eye

[Dave (in MA)]

The War Powers Act has no bearing on a Kinetic Military Action. Congress needs to pass a Kinetic Military Action Powers Act.

[narciso]

Meanwhile, is there some kind of parasite in the water at the Atlantic?

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/05/absurd-overreaction-to-what-netanyahu.html

[jimmyk]

It made me forever aware that the UN pledges and international law are not worth the paper they are written on.

Aren't UN "Peacekeeping" troops stationed expressly at the pleasure of the local despot, meaning that it's official policy that they can be dismissed for any or no reason at any time? If so, that's more or less like having fire insurance that is void in the event of, you know, a real fire. (That's quite aside from the child sex abuse scandals and other corruption.)

[Porchlight]

A pic from Barry's presser with Bibi today, where Bibi dressed him down in front of all the journalists and on live TV and everything:

[Porchlight]

And another. Look at the body language - who is the winner and who is the loser here?

O looks terrible.

[centralcal]

Don't you love the prissy smirk in the second picture, Porchlight.

[Ignatz]

--Everyone has to claim that they SOB my posts--

There are alternate definitions for the acronym in question.